Talk:National Security Space Launch

Rocketry High‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight B‑class Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

October 2006

Specific references to any rockets that talk about design or features should be kept in that rockets article NOT in EELV.--aceslead 00:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording dispute

On the word for the statement: "McDonnell Douglas would later merge with Boeing using its spacelifter for the EELV (Delta IV)." i used the word "into" because Boeing is the parent company to McDonald Douglas. Plus putting another Delta IV link in the middle of the article is very redundant. How about a mediator for this simple difference of opinion?--aceslead 20:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was a bit vague on who 'its' was. That's why I added Delta IV. You're welcome to unlink it or reword it better. Technically Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merged to form The Boeing Company in 1997. -Fnlayson 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USAF is extending the EELV program to 2030

Report: U.S. Air Force To Extend EELV Program, Space News, 24 May 2013.

"The U.S. Air Force plans to spend $21 billion from 2020 through 2030 to sustain and modernize its fleet of satellite launchers, according to a Pentagon report released May 23. The money is part of a roughly $35 billion projected funding wedge that would extend the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program from 2018 through 2028 with the addition of 60 launches, the report said. That would bring the total number of EELV launches to 151 at a cost of some $70 billion, the report said. The new cost and procurement projections were part of a small section of the U.S. Department of Defense’s Selected Acquisition Report submitted to Congress for the December 2012 reporting period. Some of the EELV-related aspects of the report remained murky at press time. The Air Force is negotiating the purchase of up to 36 rocket cores over five years from the incumbent EELV contractor, United Launch Alliance (ULA) of Denver, and plans to competitively award an additional 14 missions to give newcomers like Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) a crack at winning Pentagon business. These launches are separate from the 60 additional missions cited in the Selected Acquisition Report, according to Maj. Eric Badger, an Air Force spokesman."

—Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX involvement in EELV program

I would do it myself, but haven't the time at the moment, so figured I'd leave a note for someone else to hopefully follow-up. A few hours ago, the USAF announced the SpaceX's Falcon 9 has been certified for EELV launches. Source here. Could someone please update this article to reflect this? Thanks. :) Hunterd is back! 01:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this, I see that Darthkenobi0 has removed discussion of Falcon 9 vehicle from the body of the article. Falcon 9 is a part of the EELV program per the cited sources already and the official EELV program page. Based on this, I am going to revert that portion of the edit, but if necessary it can be discussed here further. Dbsseven (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New name: National Security Space Launch program

The FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act renames the EELV program as the National Security Space Launch program effective 1 March 2019, and has language encouraging the consideration of reusable launch vehicles:

SEC. 1603. Rapid, responsive, and reliable space launch.
(b) Reusability of launch vehicles.—
(1) DESIGNATION.—Effective March 1, 2019, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program of the Department of Defense shall be known as the “National Security Space Launch program”. Any reference in Federal law, regulations, guidance, instructions, or other documents of the Federal Government to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program shall be deemed to be a reference to the National Security Space Launch program.
(2) REQUIREMENT.—In carrying out the National Security Space Launch program, the Secretary of Defense shall provide for consideration of both reusable and expendable launch vehicles with respect to any solicitation occurring on or after March 1, 2019, for which the use of a reusable launch vehicle is technically capable and maintains risk at acceptable levels.
(3) NOTIFICATION OF SOLICITATIONS FOR NON-REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES.—Beginning March 1, 2019, if the Secretary proposes to issue a solicitation for a contract for space launch services for which the use of reusable launch vehicles is not eligible for the award of the contract, the Secretary shall notify in writing the appropriate congressional committees of such proposed solicitation, including justifications for such ineligibility, by not later than 10 days after issuing such solicitation.

This bill is expected to be signed on Monday, 14 August 2018. -- ToE 21:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon 9 description

I don't feel the current description is helpful (apart from the first two paragraphs). The sections for Atlas V and Delta IV focus on the rocket configurations (that makes sense), the Falcon 9 section focuses on some details of the manufacturing and computer system. No mention that it is partially reusable, despite the name of the program. Nothing about the payload fairing.--mfb (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard payload adapter interfaces

EELV seems to have introduced a standard launcher-to-payload interface (a ring of specific diameter and a number of fasteners and maybe some electrical connections?) which later enabled EELV_Secondary_Payload_Adapter (initial and Grande). If true could we mention it in this article ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for "new contract type"

The following sentence occurs in the "Phase 2 contracts" section:

The contract type for the phase 2 contracts is new for US government launches as it will be a "firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery" type of launch contract.

It has no reference and I don't think it's true, since the operational phases of Commercial Crew Program and the Commercial Resupply Services seem to be of the "firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery" type of launch contract. I really do not like {{citation needed}} templates, though. I'll use one, but unless it gets a reference quickly, I'll delete it. -Arch dude (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for missions assigned October 31 2023

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1719788490001449224 has a nice table that includes which of the missions assigned on October 31 2023 were Falcon vs. Falcon Heavy. I can't find a good source for that information, though https://www.cnbc.com/michael-sheetz/ does confirm that that Twitter account is owned by a CNBC reporter. So that source is decent but probably hasn't benefited from the fact-checking that a published news article would have. Because of this sourcing issue I didn't include which missions were Falcon Heavy in my recent edit to this article. 2600:4040:99D4:2500:30FB:E99C:564E:2918 (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better source for that table: https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/after-vulcan-slips-space-force-ends-up-awarding-more-missions-to-spacex/. I would have preferred a primary source myself, but Wikipedia likes secondary sources, so I'll add this to the table. --2600:4040:99D4:2500:30FB:E99C:564E:2918 (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]